Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

poll on morality

Options
  • 07-01-2013 2:39pm
    #1
    equivariant
    Registered Users Posts: 966 ✭✭✭


    I know that there is another thread on this, but I am interested in getting some quantitative info about boardsies views on morality. If the mods feel that this is overkill, maybe move the poll to the other thread?

    Basically the issue is, in your opinion are good/evil objective or subjective concepts?

    Do you believe in an objective morality 76 votes

    I am an atheist and I believe in an objective morality.
    0% 0 votes
    I am an atheist and I do not believe in an objective morality.
    21% 16 votes
    I am a theist and I believe in an objective morality.
    77% 59 votes
    I am a theist and I do not believe in an objective morality.
    1% 1 vote


«13

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    I have a special place in my heart for the Assassin's Creed series for not just being good games, but also getting in some meaningful commentary on morality and perception. The explanation of the Creed is pretty much how I see life.

    "Nothing is true, everything is permitted" essentially becomes "There is no objectivity in the world, it all comes down to individual perceptions of right and wrong. Seeing as we're stuck here together, and people are terrified about developing their own morality, let's try as best we can to create some rules of our own we can agree on to make life a little more pleasant. We can treat them as objective so insecure people can feel safe, at least until society deems a rule in need of change."

    There is no good and evil. There's just us. There's only ever been just us. And what we've considered right or wrong has constantly changed to reflect the societies of the time. It will keep changing. And religion will either change to remain "with it" (or start off as liberal/secular/non-interfering so it doesn't require change), or it'll be forgotten and replaced by some other made up thing.


  • Options
    #3
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    equivariant wrote: »
    Basically the issue is, in your opinion are good/evil objective or subjective concepts?
    You might want to define your terms if you want to see reliable results!


  • Options
    #4
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,738 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    It has grown and changed over the centuries to reflect the changing attitudes of the people of any given time.

    Look back to early civilisations and you'll see quite a bit of death penalties/physical punishments. Could you imagine what the local Gardai would say if you informed them you were to have a sword duel with someone who had insulted your honour? :P

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #5
    equivariant
    Registered Users Posts: 966 ✭✭✭equivariant


    robindch wrote: »
    You might want to define your terms if you want to see reliable results!
    Well I think that the poll options are precisely worded? What I really would like to know is the percentage of respondees that self identify as "atheist moral objectivists" - I will leave it to people themselves to decide what that means, as these are pretty well defined terms in the philosophical literature I think, and in any case I am not expert enough to give a philosophically precise definition of moral objectivism. I have included the theist options so that the results are not skewed by theist respondees (I am presuming that the vast majority of these will self identify as moral objectivists)

    If you must have a definition - this will suffice

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism


  • Options
    #6
    Insect Overlord
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 30,867 Mod ✭✭✭✭Insect Overlord


    Surely more of a philosophy discussion than a question of atheism/agnosticism, no?

    Anyway, option 2.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    The most relevant question I think is: If humanity did not exist, would the universe operate according to guiding moral principles?

    No, of course it wouldn't. Therefore there is no objective morality.


  • Options
    #8
    im invisible
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,372 ✭✭✭im invisible


    Im Agnostic...


  • Options
    #9
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    im invisible wrote: »
    Im Agnostic...
    Get in the sack.


  • Options
    #10
    Beruthiel
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 42,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Beruthiel


    Sarky wrote: »
    I have a special place in my heart for the Assassin's Creed series

    Am in the middle of playing No. 3 right now. :D
    seamus wrote: »
    The most relevant question I think is: If humanity did not exist, would the universe operate according to guiding moral principles?

    No, of course it wouldn't. Therefore there is no objective morality.

    /Thread.


  • Options
    #11
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    I'm avoiding it because if I wanted to spend hours building up a homestead I'd be on Facebook playing bloody Farmville.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    equivariant
    Registered Users Posts: 966 ✭✭✭equivariant


    im invisible wrote: »
    Im Agnostic...

    .... and??

    Are you atheist or theist?


  • Options
    #13
    equivariant
    Registered Users Posts: 966 ✭✭✭equivariant


    Insect Overlord wrote: »
    Surely more of a philosophy discussion than a question of atheism/agnosticism, no?

    Anyway, option 2.

    There seem to be a lot of atheists around these days who will argue that atheism and moral objectivism are compatible. I am interested in finding out about atheist views on this issue. So it is a question about the philosophical viewpoints of atheists - hence appropriate to this forum.


  • Options
    #14
    Beruthiel
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 42,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Beruthiel


    Sarky wrote: »
    I'm avoiding it because if I wanted to spend hours building up a homestead

    I have decided not to bother with that part.


  • Options
    #15
    equivariant
    Registered Users Posts: 966 ✭✭✭equivariant


    seamus wrote: »
    The most relevant question I think is: If humanity did not exist, would the universe operate according to guiding moral principles?

    No, of course it wouldn't. Therefore there is no objective morality.

    That is just begging the question - not a resolution of the issue at all (I am not an objectivist by the way).


  • Options
    #16
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    I want the people who chose option 1 to explain themselves!

    (Obviously we can't make the poll public now after people have voted.)


  • Options
    #17
    Beruthiel
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 42,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Beruthiel


    Dades wrote: »
    I want the people who chose option 1 to explain themselves!

    For my own peace of mind, I've decided to go with the following explaination: it's Monday, they clicked the wrong one, it's all just a big mistake, nothing to see here, move along.


  • Options
    #18
    equivariant
    Registered Users Posts: 966 ✭✭✭equivariant


    Beruthiel wrote: »
    For my own peace of mind, I've decided to go with the following explaination: it's Monday, they clicked the wrong one, it's all just a big mistake, nothing to see here, move along.
    #

    or they have just read some Sam Harris book?


  • Options
    #19
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    equivariant wrote: »
    That is just begging the question - not a resolution of the issue at all (I am not an objectivist by the way).
    Well not really. All of our data and observations of the universe before we came to exist and outside of our sphere of influence (i.e. outside of the solar system) indicate that the universe operates according to the physical principles and mechanics that govern reality and not in any moral fashion. Every atom is equal.

    Therefore the universe operates amorally.

    Now, you can go metaphysical and start to say that the basic laws of the universe manifest morality in themselves, but then you're getting into trying to redefine morality into something else altogether.


  • Options
    #20
    Sulla Felix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,442 ✭✭✭Sulla Felix


    The last time we did thus the results were a landslide for subjective. I think it's a trend thatd be replicated in almost any group of atheists at least under cover of anonymity. My subjective morality is nearly as unpopular as my atheism in some wings of the family.


  • Options
    #21
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Insect Overlord wrote: »
    Surely more of a philosophy discussion than a question of atheism/agnosticism, no?
    A philosophical question, however, the responses to which are almost always determined by the religiosity (or not) of the individual.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Dades wrote: »
    I want the people who chose option 1 to explain themselves!

    (Obviously we can't make the poll public now after people have voted.)

    Good and evil exist objectively because.


  • Options
    #23
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Zillah wrote: »
    Good and evil exist objectively because.
    Brilliant... simply brilliant!

    Have you considered a career as a religious preacher?


  • Options
    #24
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Yes, but I don't have it in me to convince people to hate themselves so I don't think I'd be a very good one.


  • Options
    #25
    equivariant
    Registered Users Posts: 966 ✭✭✭equivariant


    seamus wrote: »
    Well not really. All of our data and observations of the universe before we came to exist and outside of our sphere of influence (i.e. outside of the solar system) indicate that the universe operates according to the physical principles and mechanics that govern reality and not in any moral fashion. Every atom is equal.

    Therefore the universe operates amorally.

    Now, you can go metaphysical and start to say that the basic laws of the universe manifest morality in themselves, but then you're getting into trying to redefine morality into something else altogether.

    Not at all. Mathematical truths are objectively true (imo at least) and would remain so, if all intelligent life was removed from the universe tomorrow - the universe does not 'operate' according to these mathematical truths any more than it does according any moral truths - it just so happens that mathematics provides a convenient language for describing many of the physical properties of the universe - that is not the same as saying that mathematics is an intrinsic property of the universe.
    Thus, your argument, were it valid, would also apply to mathematical truths, which I believe are objectively true.


  • Options
    #26
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    They only hold true because of the assumption of various axioms. Assume a slightly different axiom, and your truths aren't true any more.


  • Options
    #27
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,382 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Sarky wrote: »
    I have a special place in my heart for the Assassin's Creed series for not just being good games, but also getting in some meaningful commentary on morality and perception. The explanation of the Creed is pretty much how I see life.

    The quote from the game itself:

    "To say that nothing is true, is to realize that the foundations of society are fragile, and that we must be the shepherds of our own civilization. To say that everything is permitted, is to understand that we are the architects of our actions, and that we must live with their consequences, whether glorious or tragic."

    Beautiful stuff.


  • Options
    #28
    equivariant
    Registered Users Posts: 966 ✭✭✭equivariant


    Sarky wrote: »
    They only hold true because of the assumption of various axioms. Assume a slightly different axiom, and your truths aren't true any more.

    Of course, but the arguments are still logically valid. So, for example, Goedel's theorem is still true, in the sense that the proof is a valid argument, even if there is no one around to state it.

    My objection to Seamus' argument is not that I believe moral objectivism to be correct - I do not. It is that his argument, if it were valid, is an argument against many other forms of objective knowledge - for example his argument, if valid, would also rule out mathematical structuralism.

    I think that it is possible to reject moral objectivism and still accept mathematical structuralism, hence I don't think that his argument can be valid.


  • Options
    #29
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    The thing about logic though is that you can't actually use it to prove logic works. There'll always be some assumption you can't eliminate :)


  • Options
    #30
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    Dades wrote: »
    I want the people who chose option 1 to explain themselves!
    I'd rather they didn't try. Best for everyone, to be honest.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    equivariant
    Registered Users Posts: 966 ✭✭✭equivariant


    Sarky wrote: »
    The thing about logic though is that you can't actually use it to prove logic works. There'll always be some assumption you can't eliminate :)

    On the contrary ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_completeness_theorem


Advertisement